On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:00:43AM +0100, Stuart Morgan wrote:
> On Thursday 10 Sep 2009 23:42:52 MythTV wrote:
> > For the record, I'm OK with something like the patch attached to this
> > ticket for single, timeslot and weekslot recording rules. I'm not OK with
> > the other suggestions I've seen for changing the rules. I'd much rather
> > see the power of custom rules be made more accessible. One idea I have
> > percolating is to add custom recording clauses that could be enabled or
> > disabled easily in the recording rule editor for regular rules. The new
> > clauses would probably be presented much like the "Post Recording
> > Processing" options.
>> I think most people, when being reasonable, are only looking for a fix for
> single, timeslot and weekslot rules. Fuzzy time matching in those scenarios is
> also unlikely to do any harm, even when enabled by default which is what I
> would suggest.
> [...]
> That's why I think the fuzzy time matching for single and timeslot recordings
> needs to be enabled by default, without the addition of more settings, or
> options to the schedule editor.
Hence, my guarded endorsement of "something like" the proposed patch.
Automatically handling the +/- 1 or 2 minutes past the half hour crap
some networks have been pulling the last few years would be a good
thing. I think +/- 5 minutes would be a good default, but even +/- 15
minutes might be acceptable. It's when things get into base the slop
on the length of the program that I contend the wrong type of
recording rule is being used.
> Although I appreciate the power of custom rules, I think they will always
> remain something for the power user and even with some clever presets
> accessible through the schedule editor which is a great idea, it's not the
> 'one touch' record ideal we should be aiming for. It's certainly not something
> that I'd expect to have a high WAF or pass the granny test.
The trick will be keeping the WAF high. I don't even intend to try to
pass the granny test.
BTW, trying to achieve a 'one touch' record ideal is the path to
madness, IMHO. If Bruce was still around, he'd probably describe it
better, albeit much more bluntly. I'll say it this way -- Myth can't
read minds and never will. The only way for the user to get what they
want is to tell Myth what they want. The best we can do is make it
easy for them to tell Myth what they want.
David
--
David Engel
david at istwok.net